Note that works which are a clear copyright violation may now be speedy deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G6. To protect the legal interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, these will be deleted unless there are strong reasons to keep them within at least two weeks. If there is reasonable doubt, they will be deleted.

When you add a work to this page, please add {{copyvio}} after the header which blanks the work. If you believe a work should be deleted for any reason except copyright violation, see Proposed deletions.

The problem is the inclusion of 'third-party' images which are NOT necessarily under the same Creative Commons license as the text. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs taken before 1955 are public domain now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong country: Wikisource is hosted in the United States, not in Australia. It says that the document was published in 1999, and if this was when the photographs were first published, then they will be unfree for several more decades in the United States. I can also not find any evidence that the Creative Commons licence claim for the text is valid. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My recollection is that the uploader of the original PDF, which was then moved to Common and converted to DJVU because the PDF wouldn't display, said his contribution was CC. This probably need someone with admin access at Commons and English Wikisource to do trace back what the originals were linking to. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs created before 1946 were public domain in Australia in 1996 and would not have been restored by the URAA in the U.S. It is unlikely that photographs taken from external sources would have been first published in that paper. If the Creative Commons license is not valid, that is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian photographs were in the public domain 50 years after the making of the negative, nothing to do with publication.section "Provisions as to photographs" Again having and researching an evidence base for any argument would be useful. — billinghurstsDrewth 01:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

When you state that something is in the public domain, you must also state in which country it is in the public domain. This is in particular important in countries which do not use the rule of the shorter term, such as the United States. No Australian photographs created before 1955 entered the public domain in the United States 50 years after creation of the negative. That's when the copyright expired in Australia, but USA uses different rules. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of such works expired in the U.S. when they were published without a copyright notice. Photos created 1946 and later could well have an issue though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Right. Australian photographs which were published usually entered the public domain either immediately upon publication (no notice) or 28 years after publication (no renewal). There could be some which were published with notice and renewal, but I suppose that's uncommon for non-US works. The main problems are photos not published until after 1963 (no renewal needed) and photos created after 1945 (URAA automatically added any missing notices and submitted any missing renewals). In either case, the copyright didn't expire in the United States 50 years after creation; that was only the case in Australia and in countries which recognise the rule of the shorter term. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence that a photo was kept unpublished for some time, the usual assumption for foreign photos is publication without notice. That also precludes renewals being an issue, though that is also a fallback sometimes if it turns out there was a notice. But yes, the main problem would be photos created after 1945 -- those would have had their U.S. copyright restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper photographers seem to take lots of photographs of each event but only end up publishing one or two of them. Family photographs are also usually unpublished. Some of these unpublished photographs might later end up somewhere and become published a lot later. Therefore, it seems that most photographs are unpublished and that we can't assume that a photograph is published unless we have some indication that this is the case. Also, it does not seem safe to assume that a photograph was published without a notice, in particular not after many countries started signing the Universal Copyright Convention which mentions copyright notices. Most European publications currently contain a copyright notice, although this was a lot less common in the past. The only thing we can safely assume is that pictures were published without a renewal as there should have been very few people outside the United States who bothered submitting a renewal to the United States authorities. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've brought up a few times some works that are hosted under a non-US copyright tag, like {{PD-INGov}} or {{PD-Israel}}. These tags indicate that a work is PD in the source country, but don't indicate whether a work is PD in the USA.

I would like to add a little notice on the end of all of these tags based on the one used at {{PD-Russia}}, saying something to the effect of:

This work is also in the public domain in the U.S.A. because it was in the public domain in (country) in 1996, and no copyright was registered in the U.S.A. (This is the combined effect of (country)'s joining the Berne Convention in (year), and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)

That way, the copyright tags can indicate both the information about source country copyright, but also the crucial US copyright status that allows the text to be hosted here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The only license that we require is the US license, the additional licenses are niceties, not requirements. If people wish to double license, then they should be wrapped in Template:license container begin and "... end". — billinghurstsDrewth 02:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem that I wish to address is that works get uploaded with non-US tags but don't have a US tag added. I think that the non-US tags should either be able to function as US tags also, or have a warning saying that a US tag must also be provided. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

We are not catching their absence during patrolling? — billinghurstsDrewth 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'm finding quite a few that have been here for years by digging through various maintenance categories, which is why I'm bringing it up. Already there are discussions in progress on this page regarding works that have been uploaded under {{Legislation-CAGov}} and {{PD-INGov}} and {{PD-Israel}}, and I expect to find quite a few more. I just want to generalize our approach so that I don't need to make a new discussion every time I find another one.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Support the thought to retrofit.--Jusjih (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

How many of these works have the correct license? Are there any of the works that ought to have a different license? Otherwise, I agree that we cannot / should not host works under the stated tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of them are listed with multiple license tags and can be kept. Some of them I'm not sure. Maybe we should discuss each individually. I'd delete the license tag though, or at least make a note on it that works cannot be hosted under the license unless they are PD in the US for some other reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

┌──────┘ Relevant to this discussion, I think our copy of Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia (the basis for the distinction drawn above between {{PD-IndonesianGov}} and {{PD-EdictGovIndonesian}}) may be out of date. Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia bills itself as a 2002 act as amended in 2014, but the 2014 revision legislation (available from WIPO, with a not-so-great machine translation into English) appears to be more in the nature of a replacement than an amendment. The rule against copyrightability of governmental works is now stated in Article 42 in terms that do not entirely overlap with Article 13 of the 2002 act; there is a new provision in Article 41 concerning limits on copyrightability of certain works; and there is a series of exceptions under new Articles 43–49, some of which may be pertinent for our purposes.

All of which is just by way of saying that perhaps this discussion needs to be tabled until we as a community develop a fuller sense of what Indonesian copyright law actually requires (and permits). Tarmstro99 23:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, @Tarmstro99: is right: the template is out of date. The newest Copyright Act that we use is the 2014 edition (you can see it on Indonesian Wikisource: id:Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014). The Copyright Act says that all of Acts made by government doesn't have any copyright, on Article 42 (Tidak ada Hak Cipta atas hasil karya berupa: ... b. peraturan perundang-undangan). The 2014 edition is a replacement for the 2002 edition. RaymondSutanto (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@RaymondSutanto: is the legislation retroactive, does it affect government works published before 2014?—Also, this discussion does not cover Acts of government (which are hostable under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but rather works created by the Indonesian government that are not legislative. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is retroactive. Works that are not legislative are also counted (included) on Article 42, for example Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah) and Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden) that are not a legislative law. RaymondSutanto (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a (mediocre) translation of the 2014 law here. The changes that affect us aren't substantial. Government works that aren't listed in section 42 are still licensed in a non-compatible fashion (no derivatives except for certain purposes). The works listed in section 42 are the same as section 12 of the 2002 law, except that "scripture or religious symbols" are now exempt from copyright, and "decisions of arbitration boards or of other similar agencies" are no longer exempt from copyright. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

See w:A Tryst With Destiny. This is a 1947 speech by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Current copyright law in India gives it a copyright as a government work of 60 years, so it would be out of copyright in India in 2008. (Or so sayth Wikipedia.) I don't see it as PD in the US, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless it was published in the U.S. within 30 days. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: Move to BiblioWiki? I am no longer able to do it.--Jusjih (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Media administrates the publishing rights of the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies on Nobelprize.org on behalf of the Nobel Foundation who hold copyright. For information on how to license these, please contact media@nobel.se.

Roosevelt's speech is out of copyright because it was published before 1923. I don't see any reason why Al Gore's speech would be out of copyright, given he wasn't in a federal office in 2007. Barack Obama was President at the time of his speech, and we've generally read the copyright law to put pretty much everything the President creates into the public domain. (And it's possible it was written for him by a White House official.) But accepting the Noble Prize is generally not a Presidential duty, so...? I'm leaning towards it being a work of the US government. Faulkner's speech in 1950 may not have been copyrighted and renewed, and the URAA didn't restore copyrights of Americans like Faulkner, so that's probably in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gore Delete contributor is also known to be open-minded with their interpretation of copyright; Obama Keep, we have called USGov; Roosevelt Keep pre-1923; Faulkner, ??? was it published in the US, and within 30 days?. — billinghurstsDrewth 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The URAA doesn't restore works that are solely by Americans. There has to be at least one author who is from an eligible nation, which explicitly excludes the US. I can't find a renewal, but I don't know when it was first published. If it hit the New York Times via telegraph, it could have been published within 30 days in a renewed work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the URAA would restore works by Americans if they were actually residing overseas at the time. But Faulkner would not qualify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any source for the English translation (Sod Ha'ibur by Richard Fiedler (2014) copies Wikisource). The Aramaic text should probably go to the main Wikisource, though it would be nice to have a source for that, too. We could make a local translation, if necessary; it's pretty short, but Aramaic is not a widely-known language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Onceinawhile wrote on my talk page that "The Aramaic comes from Mann in 1922:[1]. Published in the UK, and confirmed as being out of copyright by IA / Cornell. The English translation is from the same time period but I can’t find the source online (I think I took it from a library); this was five years ago." I wasn't truly worried about the Aramaic, but given that one year later is still in copyright, "from the same time period" isn't much help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete, unfortunately, since there's no way to verify —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Set of translated works by Marc that have been held by us for a long period. They are noted as the translations being published in 1926, and confirmed as first published, and the author having died 1971 (FreeBMD date). Author is British, and the linked archive.org reprint was during the life of the author, so not a sign that the reprint was able due to no copyright. Archive.org has numbers of Stenning's works[2], though they would all appear to be in copyright.

It would appear that unfortunately that these works are copyright in UK, and US and not out of copyright until at least 95 years after publication (2021). — billinghurstsDrewth 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the 1926 edition was a US publication (New York, International publishers, 1926); was its copyright renewed? Or, maybe, there wa an older British-only publication? Ankry (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Could people assist to determine whether (external scan) is out of copyright in the United States? The translator died in 1960, so it's still protected in the UK, but I'm unsure whether the book was registered for copyright in the US, and whether or not there was a renewal. It seems to have been published only from London, and anything post 1922 is confusing for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: The translator is Christabel Marshall, who published under the pen names of Christopher St John and Christopher Marie St John. I do not know which of these names the copyright might (or might not) have been registered under. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why it would be PD in the US. (It is PD in Canada, which is why the University of Toronto may have felt fine about uploading it.) There's basically just two rules for restoration; it had not to be PD in its source nation in 1996 (or later if the nation joined WTO or Berne later, or is Vietnam, but 1996 for most of Europe) and "has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country." So it wasn't PD in the UK in 1996, the translator lived in the UK and it was published in UK with no following publication in the US.

Short of finding it was printed in the US at the same time, we'll have to wait until next year.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think it's useful, I would like to kickstart 2019 with a collection of books that are newly freed into the public domain in the US (i.e. works from 1923), and this would certainly be an option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I would think that this would be best considered as a subpage to WS:RT or a rejig of those pages. And to that we should also consider how we would list works that we have deleted that could be undeleted as coming out of copyright. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: This would definitely be useful. We have no medieval plays at all, or any works by Hrosvitha (except for the one I found that was in PD). Hrosvitha is the earliest post-Roman playwright whose works survive, and the first female playwright (we know of) from anywhere in the world. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: To some extent, WS:RT could work, but I also want a big bang on 2019-01-01, and that's going to take more off-wiki work and more preparation than WS:RT is usually associated with. I've been working on transcription projects for close to 20 years, starting not too long after the US PD was basically frozen. This is a huge deal to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant but the original page did provide a link to the NPC's official English website. Assuming the translations there are official translations, they are in the public domain under article 5, item 1 of the PRC Copyright Law. --Ewan0707 (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Is [4] back in 2004 your meant original page? I am reverting my added copyvio tag, but still waiting for proper license.--Jusjih (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Published in India in 1941. Author died in 1947. Accordingly, was not PD-India on URAA date. Therefore, copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after publication. Also pinging @Rajasekhar1961:, the uploader, for comment. Hrishikes (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The author died in 1947, more than 60 years from now (2018). So I thought, it is in public domain in India. Is the copywright law say differently. Kindly clafiry. --Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but English Wikisource has to follow the somewhat inconvenient US rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: It is indeed in the public domain in India at present. But it was not so on January 1, 1996, when most countries, including the USA and India, entered the Uruguay treaty of forming the World Trade Organisation. On that date, the work was copyrighted in India, so the U.S. gave cognisance to this copyright retrospectively from publication. Once copyright got thus recognised in the U.S., the term of copyright would be as per the U.S. law, i.e., 95 years from publication. English Wikisource, unlike the Indic ones, follows U.S. laws only. So current PD-India status has no value here; the status in 1996 determines the issue. Hrishikes (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So we can work on the books published before 1923. Does that mean we have to remove it from English wikisource.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the issue we are discussing. Let's see what others say. Hrishikes (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree this was not PD in India on the URAA date: according to w:Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights, books by authors who died after 1941 are 60 pma. There's no US renewal in the Stanford database so it could be PD in the US if published in the US within 30 days of publication in India. However I see no evidence of that, so Delete. BethNaught (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Although the original The Book of Martyrs, also known as the Actes and Monuments (1563) was written by John Foxe, who died in 1587, this book is a later edition that clearly contains a lot of material added by someone who could not have been Foxe, since it relates to events from the 17th up to the 19th century in some chapters. These texts have most likely been added by the editor William Byron Forbush, who published this book in 1926 and died in 1927. The licence PD-old is therefore wrong, this book containing original work from Forbush was published AFTER 1923. Moreover, it was most likely published in the USA because Forbush lived there, so PD-1996 would not apply. Finally, I checked and its copyright was renewed in 1954, excluding PD-US-no-renewal. By the way, this website confirms Forbush added a few new chapters himself, and warns the copyright may not have expired yet. So if I understand correctly, this work should not be on Wikisource yet. If the last website is correct about 95 years, this couldn't be on Wikisource until 2022. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete for the reasons outlined above. It can be moved to BiblioWiki. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This work is identified as translated by "J. M. Ashmand", which seems to be the result of copying from a website that makes that claim.

However, the text seems to be the translation by Author:Frank Egleston Robbins for the Loeb Classical Library. The date I have for that text is 1940, though it might have been published earlier.

Can I get confirmation of my suspicions? This may need to be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the advertisement and proem is from Ashmand's, then it restarts with the proem of Robbins' through to the end of the text, judging from some randomly selected passages. Prosody (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is volume 435, first published in 1940. The start of Book 2 is the same, so presumably it's mostly or completely derived from the Loeb. I don't see copies available online as public domain, but it was not renewed, and has no copyright notice on the "Printed in Great Britain" 1964 edition I'm looking at. It's generally believed that all the early Loebs are PD, but IIRC, WWII complicated the both sides of the pond printing and thus the PD status. I really don't know; @Clindberg:, are you more familiar with the legal issues here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I don't see a renewal for the Robbins work, published in 1940 apparently by Harvard University, and as an American (living in the U.S.) there are no possible URAA issues even if first published in Great Britain. So it would seem that text is in the U.S. public domain either way (Ashmand's translation being from 1822). I don't think that WWII would have any bearing. There may have been some forgiveness for renewals which needed to be filed during the war, but those would have all been pre-1923 works in the first place, and the original publication appears to have been in the U.S. (before the war started there) anyways. The renewal would have had to be filed by Robbins' estate in 1967 or 1968. It appears Robbins lived from 1884 - 1963. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a page for clean-up? This text does look copyright-free, but is a mix of sources and needs some work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There are a few Mao Zedong's work on English Wikisource citing the Article 5 of Chinese copyright law, which exempts all Chinese government and judicial documents, and their official translations, from copyright. However, Mao did not hold any government office after he left the office of the Chairman of the People's Republic of China in 1959. Further more, there is a report that royalties was paid for the translations of Mao's work published outside of China.

Granted the separation of party and state was unclear at time, does Article 5 applies for Mao's work in his capacity as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China? Furthermore, many of Mao's essays were written in his personal capacity, does Article 5 applies to these? -Mys 721tx (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, Article 55 of the 1990 copyright law states that "[t]he rights of copyright owners, publishers, performers, producers of sound recordings and video recordings, radio stations and television stations as provided for in this Law shall, if their term of protection as specified in this Law has not yet expired on the date of entry into force of this Law, be protected in accordance with this Law." If Article 5 does not apply, then Mao's personal works will not enter public domain until 2027. -Mys 721tx (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many, if not all, unsourced translations of Mao Zedong's work were sourced from "Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung". I was previously transcribing it before it was deleted due to copyvio on both here and Commons. -Einstein95 (talk)

So, Article 5 would exempt anything Mao wrote -- including their translations -- while he was in office. According to the wikipedia article, that would be from 1949 to 1959. I'm not sure if his chairmanship of the Communist party (1943-1976) or his chairmanship of the Central Military Commission (1954-1976) count as government posts. So pretty much anything we have from 1949-1959 is probably covered by Article 5; anything outside of that date range, unless it was prior to the '20s, is probably not.

Unfortunately his author page does not list dates directly. I think it would be most useful to actually identify which of these many works are actually potentially copyright violations. Most of the works that I've looked at linked from that author page seem to be from the 1930s, which predate his holding government officeship, and which thus preclude the use of the Article 5 exemption. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It is PD in the UK & Canada, but not PD in the US until Jan 2019. There is no copyright renewal that I can find (which is good), but the work was published simultaneously in the US & UK, so copyright law for works published in the US in 1923 still applies. We'll have to wait a few months before hosting it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If there's no copyright renewal and it was published simultaneously in the US, it should be (under US law) a US work and thus out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of laziness, I volunteer to take the appropriate action after a suitable discussion period of, say, five months. :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Do speeches by government officials fall under the auspices of {{PD-TH-exempt}}? According to the banner, it applies to:

News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain

Constitution and legislations

Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports

Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

I'm looking at Teachers' Learning in a Changing World (1996) by the Thai Minister for Education. There's no indication of where this speech was given, or of the copyright status of the translation. That aside, assuming that the translation is fine, I can't tell if it is covered appropriately by this license.

It's clearly not news, constitution, or legislation, so (1) and (2) are off the table. Nor is it judicial, so (4) is out. The question is then if this counts as a "notification" or "explanation" or "official correspondence" of the Minister, nor am I sure how to go about figuring it out officially.

Madagascar copyright is 70 years PMA, which for Rahajason will be 2041

Also the oldest copy of the translation I could find is this explicitly copyrighted collection, though I could not say with certainty that the translation is original to that collection. Nonetheless, there is no reason I can find to consider it in the public domain.

It seems clear to me that the translation is obvious copyvio, but also that the original is copyvio as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not that it affects much on Wikisource, but apparently a new US-Canada trade pact could see Canadian copyright terms extended to 70 p.m.a for some works. (Most likely to be those still in copyright (as happened with the UK extension from 50 p.m.a to 70 p.m.a. ), or works published after whenever the trade deal is ratified in Canada.)

If the copyright tag for Letter requesting a copy of Adventures in Contentment is correct (i.e. if the work was indeed published in the USA between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice), the US copyright will remain the same for that as well. Since the US law will not be changing, there should be no change to what may be hosted here. I guess we'll find out more when the details are hashed out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Most likely Canada will make the extension non-retroactive, meaning there would not be anything to delete even if we did use Canada's law here (rather just a freeze on new expirations). Since we use U.S. law only though, it's highly unlikely that anything is needed -- the URAA remains unaffected. If there are tweaks to the U.S. copyright law due to the new treaty, we'd have to see what those are, but aside from that there should be no changes here. PD-Canada is just a helpful-information tag; I suppose if they make the law retroactive we may have to remove some of those but that will not affect hosting ability. The main effect will probably be that Wikilivres/Bibliowiki becomes less useful as time goes on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

See my concern raised on its talk page. It seems that the introduction is probably still in copyright. How should we deal with this? Mathmitch7 (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. The Introduction, which covers pages ix–xliv, was written by E. Digby Baltzell and has its own copyright (including this express notice from the colophon: “Introduction by E. Digby Baltzell, Copyright 1967 by Schocken Books Inc.” U.S. copyrights in 1967 works were subject to automatic renewal under the 1992 CRA, so Prof. Baltzell’s essay will presumably remain under copyright until 2062 (absent further legislative alterations to the term of protection).

The way we have dealt with such problems previously (for example, in The Pentagon Papers) is to upload a new version of the source file from which the copyrighted content has been removed, and to mark the affected pages with {{text removed}} during proofreading. It’s not elegant, but it avoids legal trouble. Tarmstro99 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Earliest version I can find is Eight Upanishadas with a first edition 1953. This is consistent with the publisher's note in The Complete Works of Sru Aurobindo which states that they were written before 1914 but not prepared for publication until after the author's death in 1950. This, I understand, means it would be copyrighted in India until ~2020 (70yrs pma) and therefore also covered under URAA. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

India has a 60 years' rule, not 70. Even then, URAA applies, if the author dies in 1941 or later and in case of posthumous works, if published in 1941 or later. Hrishikes (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Prior discussion at WS:PD identified this work as an English-language translation of a Turkish original. That discussion is reproduced here for ease of reference:

A Google search for the text turned up only this page itself. In the absence of prior publication information there is nothing from which we can conclude that the text may be hosted here. Perhaps it is an English-language translation of a foreign-language work? Tarmstro99 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that the original Turkish text is copyrighted; it does not seem to fit within the exception found in Article 31 of their statute for “laws, rules, regulations, notifications, circular letters and juridical decisions which are officially promulgated or announced[.]” Regardless, the English translation posted here is likely copyrighted (it’s a little too poetic to be the product of machine translation, as a look at the whimsically off-kilter Google auto-translation of s:tr:Alay Marşı will confirm). No translator is identified and no license is provided to indicate that this translation may be hosted here. Tarmstro99 17:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete since no one seems to know the copyright status of either the original or the translation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)